Friends Bulletin-Pacific, North Pacific, and Intermountain Yearly Meetings of the Religious Society of Friends-July and August 1985

Friends Bulletin

PACIFIC, NORTH PACIFIC AND INTERMOUNTAIN YEARLY MEETINGS
OF THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS

Volume 53, Number 10

Golden Lupine

JULY, 1985

Call to Pacific Yearly Meeting,

July 28 -August 3, 1985
La Verne University,

La Verne, California

The 39th annual session of Pacific Yearly
Meeting will convene at La Verne University in
southern California, July 28 - August 3. This
promises to be a week of spiritual refreshment
and fellowship, as we seek once again for God’s
guidance in those things that are eternal.

As the agenda takes form, we know we will
be receiving and studying the new Faith and
Practice , coming to grips with Marshall Massey’s
challenge to Quakers as stewards of the earth,
considering Pacific Yearly Meeting’s role in the
wider family of Friends, meeting three Young
Friends from East Germany, and struggling with
our testimony on equality regarding race and
sex. Other surprises which we do not now foresee
will emerge.

As we meet once again, may we find “that
principle which is pure and proceeds from God,”
as John Woolman put it, and “where the heart
stands in perfect sincerity.” As we find this inner
peace, may we be more able to gird ourselves for
our true vocation— applying the Light to the out-
ward world.

Robert Vogel, Clerk

o

CD

<

CL

PAGE 154 — JULY, 1985

FRIENDS BULLETIN

FRIENDS BULLETIN
(USPS 859-220)

11349 Hwy 116, Guerneville, CA 95446
Telephone: (707) 869-2693
Shirley Ruth, Editor
Jeanne Lohmann, Associate Editor
722 10th Ave., San Francisco, CA 94118
Jason Brown, Corresponding Editor, NPYM
6325 Tralee Dr., N.W., Olympia, WA 98502
Mary Etter, Corresponding Editor, NPYM
3080 Potter, Eugene, OR 97405

The official organ of news and opinion of Pacific, North
Pacific and Intermountain Yearly Meetings of the
Religious Society of Friends.

Second class postage paid at San Francisco, California.

PUBLISHED monthly except February and August at
722 - 1 0th Ave., San Francisco, CA 94118. All corres-
pondence, editorial and subscription, should be directed
to the Guerneville address above. Deadline for copy is
fifth of the month preceding month of issue.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $1 4.00 per year for individuals,
$10.50 per year for group subscriptions through Meetings.
First class postage $3.50. Foreign postage varies as to
countries; write editor for costs. Single copies $1 .50 post-
paid. Monthly Meetings are encouraged to subscribe for
all their members, at the lower rate. Contributions beyond
subscription price are welcomed to help meet actual costs.

All contributions are tax deductible; receipts sent on request.

NORTH PACIFIC YEARLY MEETING OFFICERS

Presiding Clerk: Barbara Janoe, Rt. 1 , Box 403, Terrebonne
OR 97760

Steering Committee Clerk: Jane Uphoff, 2626 N.E. 22nd

Portland, OR 97212

Treasurers: Henry and Jackie Van Dyke, 3300 NW Van
Buren Ave., Corvallis, OR 97330

PACIFIC YEARLY MEETING OFFICERS

Presiding Clerk: Robert Vogel, 1678 Casitas Ave.,

Pasadena, CA 91103

Assistant Clerk: Jeanette Norton, 53 Sparrowhawk,

Irvine, CA 92714

Treasurers: Virginia Croninger, 4509 Pavlov Ave.,

San Diego, CA 92122
Walter Klein, 4509 Pavlov Ave.,

San Diego, CA 92122 .

INTERMOUNTAIN YEARLY MEETING OFFICERS

Presiding Clerk: Frances McAllister,, 526 N. Bertrand,
Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Continuing Committee Clerk: Marie Clark, 651 1 W.

Alice Ave., Apt. 98,

Glendale, AZ 95302

Treasurer: Maud Ward, 1668 W. Glendale Ave.,

Apt. 427, Phoenix, AZ 85021

“The Quaker stresses the guidance of the enlight-
ened conscience. He relies upon illumined reason
and authority as checks. His positions may appear,
even to himself, to be contrary to reason and to
respected authorities. But if the Light in his con-
science gives him a clear leading, he must follow it
as the primary organ for ascertaining religious and
moral truth.”

—Friends for 300 Years,

Howard Brinton, p. 121

With this issue Friends Bulletin begins a dialogue
concerning Liberation Theology and its world-wide
historical role and significance. As Elizabeth Watson
(in her recent address to IMYM) observed: “We are
living at the time of the Second Reformation.” As
Friends, we need to become better informed of
this religious phenomenon which has made of the
Catholic Church two churches and is empowering
the global poor.

What are the implications of Liberation Theology
for the United States, for Europe, for Africa? In
what ways can we unite with the insights of Libera-
tion Theology? In what ways are our insights at
variance?

We invite responses from Friends, and have been
assured by at least one Friend at IMYM, Kenneth
Boulding, that such will be forthcoming. May we
be guided by the Light in our conscience as we
explore and test these issues.

In the fall we shall continue a forum on
Sanctuary and Friends’ experiences of crises and
change.

Pre-trial hearings in Phoenix, AZ, are presently
determining the shape of the September 7 trial for
the Sanctuary indictees. As I hold Friends Jim
Corbett and Nina McDonald and the other indictees
in loving respect and thanksgiving for their work
and witness, I recall Daniel Berrigan’s Vietnam
conversations (while he was living underground J
with Robert Coles ( The Geography of Faith, pp.
81,82):

. . . they [Bonhoeffer, Martin King and
many others] have dared accept the poli-
tical consequences of being human beings
at a time when the fate of people, of the

(Continued on page 166)

FRIENDS BULLETIN

JULY, 1985 -PAGE 155

SANDINISTA CHRISTIANS

by Barbara Graves, Strawberry Creek Meeting

Some of us North American Nicaragua-watchers see Sandinistas as “communists” and deduce from
this that we should destroy their revolution. Others with a theological rather than a political perspective,
see Sandinistas as practicing “liberation theologians” and deduce from this that we should either embrace
or reject their revolution, depending on the observers’ theological commitments. As a Quaker Nicaragua-
watcher, I see Sandinistas as predominantly Catholic leaders and people living out a unique national
experiment designed to provide “a preferential option for the poor;”* and I deduce from this that we
should protect, defend and seek to be spiritually challenged by their revolution.

I welcome this opportunity to sort out my experiential reflections and to invite -Friends’ criticisms. I
will start with a quick description of the above two positions and then focus on my own.

The inflammatory rhetoric with which administration spokespeople describe Nicaraguan “communism”
is generally recognized as untruth. Nicaragua has achieved a restructuring of society which includes a
mixed economy, a democratically elected government, political pluralism, privately owned property
along with government-directed agrarian reform, and perhaps most important, a freedom from economic
or political alignment with either superpower. The data clearly show that most foreign help comes from
Western rather than Eastern block countries. Nicaraguans loudly insist that after a century of domina-
tion by United States economic and political interests they have no taste for anything but national
sovereignty, and are willing to die for it. I have found Foreign Minister Miguel d’Escoto’s comments on
Marxism and Christianity helpful. The March, 1983, issue of Sojourners Magazine, as well as the 1984
Sojourners study guide, Crucible of Hope, both contain d’Escoto’s article entitled “Nicaragua— An Un-
finished Canvas.” It begins like this:

When a revolution takes place, people look for the ideology that guides the building of a new
society. Sometimes revolutions can be embarked upon rather hastily, and people may think the
essence of a revolution is to overthrow a government. That is not the revolution. That is some-
thing that has to happen prior to the revolution. Thank God, in Nicaragua, in the varying trails
of our mountains and valleys and in our cities there has been in gestation for more than half a
century a true Nicaraguan ideology which we call Sandinismo.

D’Escoto then writes about the four fundamental pillars undergirding Sandinista thought. They are
nationalism, democratic aspiration, Christianity and social justice. He confronts the issue of the co-
existence of Marxism and Christianity as follows:

From a philosophical perspective, of course, Marx helps us understand the connection between
liberal philosophy, capitalism, imperialism and racism. As a 20th century revolution, we are
definitely influenced by Marxist thought, as many modern people are, whether they know it or
not. So as Sandinistas we have been very much aided by Marxist thought to understand some
great problems. But we have been equally or more influenced by Christian thought.

As for the perspective of liberation theology and its influence on the Nicaraguan revolution, I have

— (Continued on page 156)

*The doctrine of a preferential option for the poor emanated from the Conference of Latin American bishops in Puebla,
Mexico, in January, 1979, seven months before the years of popular insurrection against Somoza's dictatorship ended in
"the Triumph" on July 19, 1979, and began the revolutionary process of the FSLN government of reconstruction.
"Revolution" is seen as ongoing experimentation with a goal of developing a better way of life for all Nicaraguans. There
is a recognizable commitment to "learn as we go," and to open-ended process.

PAGE 156 — JULY, 1985

FRIENDS BULLETIN

(Sandinista Christians: Cont. from page 155)

concluded— and mounting evidence confirms this view— that the debates raging between the hierarchical
Church represented by the Vatican, and the Nicaraguan government represented by its four eminent
Catholic priests have more to do with what the Church feels are threats to Church authority from a grow-
ing grassroots religious revolution than with religion itself.

But because liberation theology is under discussion in this issue of Friends Bulletin, I have searched
out a bottom-line theological statement from perhaps the best known of the Latin American liberation
theologists, Gustavo Gutierrez. Henry J. M. Nouwen, in his foreword to Gutierrez’ We Drink From Our
Own Wells, quotes the author as follows:

Everyone has to drink from his own well. From what well can the poor of Latin America drink?

It is obviously that unique and renewing encounter with the living Christ in the struggle for free-
dom. To drink from your own well is to live your own life in the Spirit of Jesus as you have en-
countered him in your concrete historical reality. This has nothing to do with abstract opinions,
convictions, or ideas, but it has everything to do with the tangible, audible and visible experience
of God, an experience so real that it can become the foundation of a life project.

What Quaker could not endorse such a statement?

My experiences in Nicaragua and my readings before and since, say to me that this is the essence of
liberation theology as one can find it in lengthier discourses, and is what one senses to be at the heart of
these people’s religious experience generally.

There is just no room for doubt that multitudes of Nicaraguans are actively practicing Christians, both
Catholic and Protestant, who pack their churches every Sunday and tend to translate their everyday living
in terms of simple biblical insights.

Last summer I spent two intense weeks of fact-finding in Nicaragua as a member of a nationwide
Fellowship of Reconciliation/Witness for Peace delegation. We spent one week in the war zones where
anti-Sandinista contras ravage the peasants’ lives and property, and one week in Managua, the seat of the
Sandinista government. (It is also the seat of the American Embassy.) The solid influence of personal
religion in the lives of policy-makers I met and of the people who live the revolution throughout the coun-
try was apparent. The noticeable stress of life under the daily toll of our North American economic and
military siege made the impact of people’s Christianity the more compelling for me.

One of the tragedies of our propaganda version of Nicaraguan life as Marxist/Leninist, militaristic,
communist-controlled, dictatorial tyranny over a resistive population, is what that version blots out. Even
those of us who have seen and felt the opposite truths, tend to forget the powerful realities of a different
witness. We have, by the hundreds, come back to tell of Nicaraguans as a gentle, generous, courageous,
self-respecting, freedom-reflecting population. Even those who freely dissent, prefer their government
and their way of life to anything they have previously experienced. Most will tell you, “We will never
go back.”

Were such observations unique to me I would have to discount them as personal and perhaps biased
experience. But since they are replicated in the experiences of many, many other North Americans I am
forced to understand them as characteristics of a phenomenon belonging to these Nicaraguan people in
these historical times, which includes the phenomenon of our own government’s sad misreading of
Nicaragua’s realities.

I’d like to cite Ellie Foster’s experience as one witness. At College Park winter Quarterly Meeting,

Ellie reported on her Nicaragua visit. She described the joyous comraderie at the end of a workday in a
Nicaraguan village near the Honduran border. Toward evening she participated in a high-spirited celebra-
tion of the mass in a packed church of villagers with many of whom she’d been working during the day.
Ellie acted out for us how a peasant woman with whom she could have no exchange in words, came over

FRIENDS BULLETIN

JULY, 1985 -PAGE 157

to her at the end of the service, simply laid her hand on Elite’s shoulder and smiled affectionately.
Another asked to take her arm to escort her out of the church and across the dark, muddy country road.
The experience of cordial hospitality was heightened, so Ellie said, by her all too real reminders that
there were U.S. empowered contra insurgents close by. Of course this is the everyday reality for those
villagers. Peasants near the border seem to understand that “la bestia,” (“the Beast”) is not individual
Americans but our present government. Ellie shared with us the gratitude she felt for what seemed like
forgiveness. Her reflections ended with a sort of reverie: “I’m not sure how to say it, but I came away
feeling that we are missing something.”

What is that quality which we are missing which seems to flourish in spite of hard, tedious daily work,
poverty and suffering? I experienced it in the cooperative farming village of Escambray, also a border
town, where all night we heard the exchange of gunfire with the contras. This is my diary entry for
August 20, 1984:

We hoed hard earth today in blistering heat. We ‘gringas’ could tolerate only a few hours before
noontime. The village women knew that before we did, and gently encouraged us to take siestas
on their concrete porches amid the kids and puppies and chickens while they returned to the
onion field. About four-thirty they returned, and we helped shell beans for supper. About sun-
down three village men came in from their armed border patrol to talk with us. They had been
selected to tell us about their cooperative. The first to speak, named Faustino, is a Delegate of
the Word. This means that he has been selected and trained by the Jalapa parish priest to do
liturgies here on Sundays when the priest can’t make it. Faustino spoke carefully, slowly, so Phil
could readily translate:

‘A Christian greeting from us brothers who are struggling for peace. It gives us much joy
when Christians from other countries come to learn about our situation. Feel at home
here.’

[They go on to describe the history of intense fighting; the necessity to leave their hillside homes
a year ago and unite as a community for mutual protection from the contras. The government
has been influential, they said, in bringing this about.]

Tn a certain sense the aggressions from President Reagan have pushed us to become better
people than we were before. We have become a true cooperative, and not just for growing
coffee, which we always did, but for other things like health, education, water, and all these
things we never had before. Before, the campesinos were practically abandoned and left
alone. Now we feel like a real force within our own country. I want to tell you about our
church, too. Before, it was like a church that was sleeping. During the insurrection there
were already some elements of the church that were struggling along with the poor. A lot of
young men understood that they had to take part in the liberation out of a deep Christian
commitment. They gave their lives for their brothers. The same kind of learning to care for
each other, even if you die, is what you see here now in our community as well. We believe
that God is with us and that is the reason we are capable of developing this settlement.’

[Faustino’s companion Reynaldo, a burly fellow with his gun laid casually across his lap, took
his turn:]

‘We know that the church isn’t something made of clay but something that each of us is
building with our own lives. You maybe heard that there is no freedom of worship in
Nicaragua, but that is twisted information. The truth is we have freedom like we never
had it before. With Somoza, people like our Delegates of the Word were persecuted. Even

(Continued on page 158)

PAGE 158- JULY, 1985

FRIENDS BULLETIN

(Sandinista Christians: Cont. from page 157)

priests. Anybody who preached against injustice. But now the church is awake and has
opened its eyes and is the kind of church that Christ came to leave for the world. This
settlement right here is how God wants us Christians to act, and we are living out the church
in a united way. We think Reagan would like us to have a sleeping church. Christ said thou
shall not kill, and we feel very disturbed to have to carry these guns. But we have all suf-
fered in our own flesh what the aggression means, and we have seen with our own eyes the
blood of our brothers. When several of our leaders have been killed off one by one in the
fields we came to understand that Christ also said true love is laying down your life for your
friend.

‘We really believe that God has protected us up to this moment and 3 have faith that our
community is going to continue to go forward. We just hope that your presence here will
help you tell people what you have heard and seen.’

One of the kids grabbed a chick which had lighted on Reynaldo’s shoulder, at that point, and
made us laugh.

My diary continues from the next morning:

I can’t leave the Escambray experience without recording the unexpected visit Dona Julia made
to our overnight digs in the day care center as we were packing up to leave. Dona Julia may not
be more than 50 but she looks worn, and being toothless, seems older. She is clearly the village
matriarch, as one knows from her presence but also from the fact that she’s respected by the Dona
title. She is also a Delegate of the Word, like Fernando and Reynaldo, and I had the distinct im-
pression she wasn’t going to let the two men be the only ones to address us! Dona Julia clutched
a little scrap of paper with notes on it as she spoke but never once referred to it as she talked to us,
her eyes and her message incredibly expressive:

‘Before, we didn’t have opportunities to talk to our government. As poor people we didn’t
have any part in things. We didn’t understand until we discovered our situation through the
Scriptures. Then we found that Christ doesn’t want us to continue in our poverty. Ephesians
6:10 talks about the efforts we need. It talks about putting on the shield of faith in a spirit
of service, unity, work, just authority and a popular government. Here in this settlement we
are experiencing that community. We share in prayer, work, food, studies and service to other
people. When the government comes to visit us, it’s no longer a king sitting somewhere. It’s
a peasant government and this is a peasant people, like our Christ.

I want to thank you peaceful people for coming and I hope each of us will dedicate ourselves
to take to the countries that have doubts, this message: That Christ who is King and Savior
has begun to liberate this little country of Nicaragua and we believe that this liberation can
reach to the smallest corners of the earth— to the people who are still poor and dominated,
but also to the hearts of the oppressors that they may become softened someday. The heart
of Christ was broken for us all.’

Today as I reread these lines I am once more moved to tears, as we all were then, except for the gracious
Dona Julia who hugged us to her bosom with its rustic crucifix and then walked with us to our open
trucks to say goodbye. And I ask myselt today, as I did then, “Why are we killing these good people and
trying to destroy the government which they so feel a part of?”

We had been told that the hierarchical church has never taken a stand against the brutal contra war,
and in Managua we went to visit Archbishop Vega, the head of the Nicaraguan Council of Bishops which
maintains a 5/4 voting record against the Sandinista government. First we asked him about “the preferen-

FRIENDS BULLETIN

JULY, 1985 — PAGE 159

tial option for the poor” as a matter of church dogma. Bishop Vega repeated what we’ve known as the
Pope’s position, that the church is concerned with the redemption of souls, whether people are rich or
poor, although the Pope is also concerned for conditions of poverty and social injustice. But the Sandi-
nista government, he explained, and those priests who practice a theology of liberation, have used a
Marxist analysis to manipulate and control gullible peasants through materialistic rather than spiritual
ideology. He instructed us, from his own experience, that peasants believe whatever they are told. We
described the sense we had of vital Christian living among the peasants at Escambray and elsewhere.

Bishop Vega felt we could not possibly understand from one visit as foreigners in his country. When we
asked him why the church has never come out against the brutal killings and torture by the contras, his
answer was that if the Sandinistas would give up their Marxist leanings there would be no need for a
counter-revolution. “The Sandinistas have to take the initiative toward peace.”

Practicing priests, several of whom we talked with at length, differ sharply from these positions.

Father Ramon Gonzales is one such priest. In the town of Jalapa we went to a lively, heavily atten-
ded evening mass in his parish church. (A placid white horse grazed away at the grass by the doorsill at
arm’s length from my pew.) Father Gonzales walked up and down the aisles, informally discussing the
gospel for the day as anyone in the congregation asked questions or gave personal stories interpreting how
they related their lives to the gospel. Later they all sang lustily from the Campesino Mass, which by now
was delightfully familiar to us in its lively rhythm and its worker/peasant refrains. (We could not help
contrasting the atmosphere of this Christian celebration with that of the Archbishop’s mass in the
Cathedral of Managua. Archbishop Obando y Bravo is the very symbol of anti-Sandinista hierarchical
power. I was filled with a kind of terrible anxiety over the implications of power one experienced, as his
congregation sang a song of praise to him as “Miguel, our Bishop.”)

The next day in Jalapa, Father Gonzales, in his everyday blue jeans, came to visit us to respond to our
questions about the church. We asked about these conflicts between some priests and some bishops. He
stated his strong belief that the people’s church and the church hierarchy must be in responsible, if critical,
dialogue with each other. But he also believes that it is distance from the rural peasant populations during
these times of revolutionary process which strongly influences the bishops’ stance. For Father Gonzales,
“the people are closer to the meaning of Jesus. They understand what the gospel says about everyday life.
The work of the priest is to learn from the people and to provide them with opportunities to express it
all. That is the real church. The poor have evangelized us.”

Another priest, Father Peter Marchetti, is an American highly placed in the Nicaraguan Ministry of
Agrarian Reform. Agrarian reform is one of the substantial successes of the new Nicaragua. I asked him
whether he felt it possible for the church to co-exist with what some Americans see as Marxism. His
reply was “How does the church co-exist with Marxism? That is not the right question for Nicaragua.

This revolution is a Christian message, and I ask myself, rather, how have we as a church co-existed with
capitalism?”

For a Protestant pastor’s perspective, we had an interview with Dr. Gustavo Parajon, who is a physi-
cian as well as a minister. He is the founder and director of CEPAD, the coalition of evangelical (non-
Catholic) churches and church agencies in Nicaragua. (He is not a member of the Sandinista party, by
the way. But we came to think of any Nicaraguans actively supportive of the government as
“Sandinistas.”)

Dr. Parajon’s response to my question about Christianity and Marxism had the slightest tinge of im-
patience, and I sensed that perhaps he had had to answer it often when it seemed to him self-evident.

My short-hand notes quote him as follows:

Is it Marxism to feed the hungry? Is it Marxism to be Christian? The democracy emerging in
Nicaragua is a Christian effort to create a world which is just, egalitarian and on an equal, self-

(Continued on page 160)

PAGE 160- JULY, 1985

FRIENDS BULLETIN

(Sandinista Christians: Cont. from page 159)
respecting footing with the rest of the world.

Ever since the devastating earthquake which demolished Managua in 1972, Dr. Parajon has been the
country’s most significant figure in co-ordinating emergency relief, and since The Triumph his role has
been consolidated within CEP AD. CEP AD is widely respected and supported by churches in the United
States. Dr. Parajon spoke about working relationships with the FSLN (Sandinista) government as open
and friendly:

I have been working closely with the FSLN since the first day of the revolution and have never
found anything but an open door, with support for the work of our churches and our church
agencies all around the country.

Dr. Parajon spoke also about the significant role of religion in the FSLN cabinet (junta) from its first
days. The foreign minister of Nicaragua is a Maryknoll priest whom I have already quoted, Father Miguel
d’Escoto. Three other members of the junta are priests: Father Ernesto Cardenal, a renowned poet, is
Minister of Culture. His brother, Father Fernando Cardenal, is Minister of Education and earlier was co-
ordinator of the enormously successful Literacy Campaign in the first days of the revolution. A fourth
priest, Father Edgar Parrales, is Ambassador to the Organization of American States. All four were mem-
bers of the original junta. The man who urged them into government was Daniel Ortega, who was elected
President of Nicaragua last November 3. Father d’Escoto has said that Daniel Ortega, whose youthful
dream was to be a priest, was led by conscience to leave home and join the insurrection against Somoza.
He quotes Ortega as saying, “I had to follow my Christ.”

Recently I attended the Board Meeting of NICA here in Berkeley. (Nicaraguan Interfaith Committee
for Action is a project of the Northern California Ecumenical Council.) I heard my board colleagues tel-
ling about their Eastertide experiences in Nicaragua, just a few weeks ago. They described the choking
impact of Good Friday services in a packed Managua parish church. The arrest and trial of the revolu-
tionary Jesus was the gospel for the day: the man who was crucified for insisting on one’s duty to work
for the coming of God’s kingdom— toward a society of love, justice and a clear preferential option for the
poor and oppressed. A man whose country was under the dictatorial control of a contemporary imperi-
alist superpower. The following day my colleagues visited the American embassy and listened to a career-
weary young man justify our United States policies of aggression against Nicaragua. The leader of our
NICA delegation found herself stunned. “My God, I have just lived this: We are hiding from the gospel.”
In their last interview of the tour, our NICA delegation spent over an hour with Father d’Escoto, an
hour which they describe with a tenderness which made it hard to listen without tears. After they had
talked and prayed together, they asked Father d’Escoto how his government colleagues treat him, now
that the Vatican has relieved him of his priestly functions because of his refusal to give up his Sandinista
Ministry. He profoundly believes his government service to be a ministry to the people. “They still con-
sider me their padre,” he said quite simply.

I would like to end by sharing these opening lines from the public statement of the four priests in
government, on the occasion of the first ultimatum from the Council of Bishops that they must give up
either their posts in the junta or their priestly functions. The priests’ statement is dated June 8, 1981,
and it deserves to be heard again:

We believe in God the Father, Creator of the world and
human beings.

We believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our Brother and
our Savior.

We believe in the church, the visible Body of Christ, to
which we belong.

FRIENDS BULLETIN

JULY, 1985 - PAGE 161

We believe in justice, the basis of human community and
communion.

We believe in love, the first and principal commandment of
Jesus.

We believe in our priesthood, which is our vocation to serve
our brothers and sisters.

We believe in our country, that great family to which we belong
and to which we owe our being.

We believe in the Nicaraguan people’s revolution, fashioned
by the people in order to overthrow tyranny and sow
justice and love.

We believe in the poor, who will be the ones to build a more
just homeland, and who will help us to be saved ourselves.

(Rev.) Miguel d’Escoto, (Rev.) Ernesto Cardenal
(Rev.) Edgar Parrales, (Rev.) Fernando Cardenal.

What leaps back into focus for me, as I have tried to share my reflections on Sandinista Christianity,
is the shattering understanding of our growing numbness to the lies we hear (and tend to believe after
they are repeated often enough) to justify our ideological “war against communism.”

I do not believe that Nicaragua is a communist, dictatorial, oppressive, Russian-controlled nation
which tyrannizes its people. I am painfully coming to believe, instead, that our government’s hostility is
really caused by the political implications of Nicaragua’s “preferential option for the poor.” The prefer-
ential option for the poor was not first invented at the Conference of Puebla. It belongs distinctly to the
gospels and to the teachings of Jesus. And if our own government and many in our society reflect such
fear of Christian revolution, is it going to be safe to be an active North American Christian seeking to
move our own society closer to that of a caring, just community?

Perhaps it never was. When Christians have dared to act prophetically, as Jesus did, and as early
Quakers did, daring to challenge the institutions which perpetuate injustice, they, too, suffered.

Returning from the NIC A board meeting, I picked up for my bedtime reading the Church is All of
You, a collection of quotations from Archbishop Romero’s homilies. Archbishop Romero was assas-
sinated at the altar in San Salvador on March 24, 1980, having just completed this homily:

We know that every effort to better society,

especially when injustice and sin are so ingrained,

is an effort that God blesses,

that God wants,

that God demands of us.

Father Miguel d’Escoto

David Hartsough

PAGE 162- JULY, 1985

FRIENDS BULLETIN

Theology of Liberation
or a New Theology for the Liberation

by Nelson Salinas,

former FWCC Executive Secretary of COAL

I was 18 years old back in 1965. Already I had
devoted several years of work at the high school
level in my native country to bring the Christian
message to my peers. I travelled a lot as leader of
the powerful Catholic Students Organization called
JEC (Juventud Estudiantil Catolica).

The JEC had at that time the strength to have
representation in public schools in Chile. Those
schools which were basically controlled at the ad-
ministrative level by anti-Catholics became a ground
for development of a new concept in which commu-
nist students along with Catholics, Christian demo-
crats, and independents, were united behind the
flags of school reforms. Our platform was based
upon the concept of dialogue among teachers, ad-
ministrators, and students in order to improve the
school system for us, the “jesistas.” Our call for
service and mission was rooted in the Bible. Justice
and a more humane relationship between the partic-
ipants of the school system was based upon the
message of Jesus: “Love one another. .

Later I was a member of the Latin American
Secretariat, located at Montevideo, Uruguay. At
the age of 18 and 19 I visited with our Latin
American counterparts. I met underground with
the leaders of the Catholic Student Movement of
Nicaragua, Brasil, Argentina, El Salvador, etc. For
them at that time life was— as it is nowadays— in
constant danger. To be a Christian Catholic pro-
fessing in real terms the teachings of Jesus in those
countries meant for us to be as the early Christians
threatened by Romans, meat for lions in a circus.

In those days I met Gustavo Gutierrez from Peru,
Mons. Romero, and many others. In those days
also I experienced the two churches experience:
the one of many bishops and priests and lay
people aligned with the rich and the other one
working for the needy, the oppressed, the poor.

Twenty years later all that early work is sur-
facing. To understand it today we must read the
sources of the Theological Movement, or be more

familiar with the experiences of Teilhard of Char-
din, the Emmaus in France; the French worker-
priests; Mons. Helder Camera in Brasil; the impact
of Camilo Torres on the youth of those days; the
Che Guevara diary; the Medellin Conference of
Bishops; the II Vatican Council and Juan XXIII;
etc. It seems to me that the schism in the Catholic
church continues between the church of the vast
majority of Latin Americans— the poor— and the
church of the secret elites as such, aligned to fight
all forms of rebellion against injustice— economic
and social injustice. Their pretext is to fight com-
munism, while in fact they are defending their
material wealth. So Gustavo Gutierrez’s ideas, and
those of others, makes Liberation Theology a com-
plex societal process in which many actors are in-
volved. Theology of Liberation is a sign of the
times in which even non— Catholics are experiencing
the call of the Spirit to out-reach for a better world.
And finally, it is a call to all religions from the
Spirit to understand their role in bringing Peace
and Justice to people.

Friends House Celebration

Friends House will celebrate its first full year of
successful service with a “Day on the Green” on
July 13. Among other events, there will be a silent
art auction featuring the work of some impressive
artists, including several known and loved in the
Quaker community.

With this event, we kick off a permanent fund-
raising program which will help continue and ex-
tend our services. Friends are welcome to contri-
bute.

FASE is again accepting applications for resi-
dence at Friends House. For more information or
to join the party on the 13th at this Quaker housing
and health care center for older people, find Friends
House at 684 Benicia Drive, Santa Rosa 95405;
(707) 538-0152.

FRIENDS BULLETIN

JULY, 1985 - PAGE 163

Some of My Best Friends Are Rocks
by Earle Reynolds, Santa Cruz Meeting

In Japan, I spent many hours in the country, watching the farmers build stone walls to enlarge their
hillside rice fields. The farmers seemed satisfied, the walls seemed content, and I wondered if there were
any secrets involved in building a wall. Perhaps there are. My teachers are the rocks at Quaker Center.

I have been working on the stone walls which make up the seven-tiered garden behind the house. I
began these walls several years ago, and come back to them from time to time. Since my only companions
during this work have been stones, I learned a bit about them— the hard way, one might say.

First, I must confess that I like rocks. I talk to them (only when we’re alone, of course, outsiders might
not understand). In general, we get along rather well, as long as I keep my place, and observe the proper
courtesies.

Rocks (unlike, for example, bricks) are individuals. No two are alike— they differ in size, shape, color,
degree of hardness, personality. When you work with rocks, you must merge your spirit with them. A
rock will do what you want, if you do what the rock wants.

Each rock wants to be used to its fullest capacity, and individual rocks want to feel their abilities have
been carefully considered. Some rocks are outstanding— they make a perfect corner, or an ideal surface
layer, or have a beautiful texture. Naturally, they should be used accordingly. But what of the “blobs”
(never use that word in their presence!) that are shapeless and heavy, with no virtues that one can perceive?
Tell them that these qualities are virtues. “You are the heart of the wall, the base, the strength. Without
you there is no wall!” Usually, that will do it.

Getting along with the rocks is not just politeness, it’s good sense. If you don’t work well with them,
they will certainly punish you: they will drop on your toe, pinch your fingers, strain your back, and,
under extreme provocation, sacrifice a sliver of themselves to fly into your eye. But if you work with
rocks, they will reward you with a beautiful wall.

Another thing to remember. Rocks are in no hurry. They hadn’t planned to go anywhere, and have to
be convinced that moving is in their best interest. Share your dream with them. Appeal to their egos.
Remind them that they are, as walls, links to the past, carriers of lost civilizations; that when all else is
gone, when the jungles reclaim the temple grounds, the rocks persevere, and future human generations
reconstruct the past from them.

So I suggest that (in an unobtrusive way) you talk to your rocks, explain carefully what you have in
mind, ask their help, consult with their leaders, have a word of praise for those who seem to need it, and
at the end of each day, thank them. If, in spite of all your efforts, some hard-core recalcitrant has had a
shot at you, forgive it, and ask its friendship. Rocks don’t bear grudges long.

When you finish your job and the rocks are all arranged, and your dream has become a solid reality,
have a final brief but sincere ceremony. Thank them as a wall, and wish them well in their new life. After
you are gone, they will still be there, thinking of you.

[This is an excerpt from a forth-coming book on Ben Lomond Quaker Center by Earle Reynolds which
will be sold to benefit the Center.]

PAGE 164 — JULY, 1985

FRIENDS BULLETIN

Two Reviews

by Madge Seaver, San Francisco Meeting

The Friends World Committee for Consul-
tation published in 1984 two pamphlets which will
be of particular interest to members of Pacific,
North Pacific, and Intermountain Yearly Meetings,
for the authors are well known among us. Van
Ernst and Ferner Nuhn have given devoted and
valuable service to Pacific and North Pacific Yearly
Meetings. Although these two pamphlets are both
about the same length, their content and tone are
quite different.

The Shape of Quakerism in North America by

Ferner Nuhn, 1984. 19 pp.

Ferner Nuhn’s pamphlet will be familiar to
readers of the Friends Bulletin, for a version was
printed in the July, 1983, issue. We must be grate-
ful, however, to the FWCC for making this com-
pact little history and analysis of Quakerism in
North America available in this form at what is
now considered to be a nominal price ($1.50).
Perhaps Monthly Meetings will recommend it to
inquirers and give it to new members as a way of
welcoming them into membership. Our Quaker
scholar Ferner Nuhn has an amazing ability to
put much in little.

The first page is literally the shape of Quakerism
in North America, for it is a chart called “North
American Quakerism: 1800-1980,” showing both
separations and associations of Friends on this con-
tinent in that span of time.

Separations and associations account for the
bulk of Ferner Nuhn’s text; the last third has such
happy titles as A Quaker Renaissance, Cross Fer-
tilization, and Ecumenical Quakerism. Two of
Ferner’s last paragraphs should be considered
seriously:

It is this last, which may be called the
ecumenical way, that I believe can be most
productive in our relationships both with-
in the Religious Society of Friends and,
beyond Friends, with other Christians and
with people of other religious faiths.

Our differences, whether of theology
or practice, are important, so we must try
to understand them in the light of our
mutual experience and continue to articu-
late and examine our convictions. If we
are troubled by such terms as Christian or
Jesus Christ, is it because of the actual
figure or spirit of Christ or because of claims
made by others— other churches or individ-
uals—concerning these terms? If we are
troubled by the term the Inward Light used
to signify divine Truth in a universal sense,
is it because of doubt of the existence of
such Truth or because it is not always stated
in certain Christian terms?

Many of us will respond to some of Ferner’s
more personal reflections: “As a word defining
the Christian faith, the modern term ‘Christo-
centric’ is not one which Fox or early Friends
used. ‘Christolucent’ or ‘Christoluminous’ would,

I believe, be more descriptive of the Christian
character of the faith of Fox and early Friends.”
Two phrases linger in the reviewer’s mind: “the
richness of the Quaker heritage” and “the latent
power in Quakerism.”

Intervisitation: Travel under Religious Concern.
Quaker Heritage and Present Need by Van Ernst.

19 pp.

Van Ernst’s pamphlet was written as the fruit
of her service on the Visitation Committee of
FWCC, Section of the Americas, after a term of
eight years. She gives the origin of this modern
American concern for the traveling ministry, which
the Visitation Committee was intended to imple-
ment, in both the 1976 Hamilton Triennial and the
1979 Gwatt Triennial of the FWCC. In spite of
enthusiastic endorsement at these triennial meet-
ings and in the responses to a questionnaire sent
to all members of FWCC, Section of the Americas,
when the Visitation Committee queried all twenty-
nine Yearly Meetings in the Section about how
they were carrying out this concern, only two
responses were received. One was from Baltimore
Yearly Meeting and the other. Pacific Yearly

FRIENDS BULLETIN

JULY, 1985 -PAGE 165

Meeting which has its by-now mature Brinton
Visitation Program shared with Intermountain and
North Pacific Yearly Meetings.

We should read Van’s seven alternative reasons
for this disconcerting lack of response. We will
hear her tone of humorous irony and skepticism
as well as her fervent appeal.

Van Ernst then develops a history of the role
of the traveling ministry in both the period of
foundation and also in the later “period of greater
mystical inwardness” from 1700-1800. In this
latter period the object of this strenuous travel
was no longer the “Publishing of Truth,” as the
first Friends called it, but the maintenance of
order and uniformity of dress and behavior. After
the separations, Van tells us, travelling under reli-
gious concern was either evangelical or anti-
evangelical. An institution grown from good roots
is still subject to the corruption of religious con-
troversy. Yet there were still inspired spirits among
the travelers, such as Hannah and Joel Bean, dis-
owned by Iowa Yearly Meeting and founders of
College Park Meeting, who went to the Sandwich
Islands with a religious concern.

In the last part of her pamphlet, Van Ernst
asks again and again: where are we today? In
other words, what are we doing in travel in the
ministry or in other ways to accomplish its ancient
purpose of inspiring and bonding? She suggests
that we are no longer devoted to that purpose with
the same energy and persistence, for our spiritual
temperature is depressed. We may be exhausted
with so many committees and concerns that we
have no time, even “for the care and love of our
children, husbands, wives,” to say nothing of the
itinerant ministry. At the same time, we give
little room for the prayer and contemplation
(both individual and corporate) which sustained
earlier generations of travelers.

Van suggests a number of promising new ways
of filling the gap: (1) FWCC representatives might
become better communicators in their own areas,
visiting Monthly and Quarterly Meetings to share
their experiences as representatives; (2) Meeting
libraries might make available in a prominent way
new pamphlets and handbooks.

A third suggestion which the reviewer hopes to
see come to fruition is a kind of day-long retreat
(in the traditional sense of a spiritual exercise,
not a jolly get-together) sharing: a day of silence
and speaking such concerns as Pruning, the Guidance
of Love, the Courage to Be, Healing Relationships,
or whatever the group agrees on. Van calls this
kind of gathering a presence to the Presence.

Van Ernst is writing: first, for the FWCC and
its large constituency, but also for many among us
who long for the nurturing, counseling, inspiring
and bonding and— yes!— the disciplining which the
old travelers in the ministry provided. I believe
she hopes that she is writing to some mute, in-
glorious Fothergills or Woolmans or some village
Mary Fisher.

However, it took more than these travelers
under religious concern. The other element was
the Meeting which deliberated and liberated and
even on occasion provided material support.

Letter

Dear Friends:

Jack Powelson writes on “sanctuary” in the
May Friends Bulletin. I am inspired to add my
comments, though somewhat different, to his. To
me, “sanctuary” has two purposes: (1) To aid
refugees, now especially those from Central
America; (2) To bring public policy, as expressed
by the United States administration, to accord
with U.S. law and the Law of Nations. I have
reason to believe that both sets of law encourage
aid to refugees, but that the U.S. administration
ignores one and interprets the other in a contrary
manner. My belief is strengthened by two facts:

(1) The administration acts in a similar manner on
other problems; (2) As far as I know, a case has
been mounted against “sanctuary” workers and
refugees in one jurisdiction where conviction in
District Court was certain, but elsewhere the ad-
ministration has denounced the movement while
it attempts to avoid court action.

It seems to me that under present conditions,

(Continued on page 166)

PAGE 166- JULY, 1985

FRIENDS BULLETIN

(Letter: Con t. from page 165)

“sanctuary” is forced at some points to be secre-
tive to protect its beneficiaries while at others it
must be public in order to influence the opinions
and actions of others. This is not an ideal environ-
ment for Friends’ testimony, but few situations
are. We would like to bear witness quietly but
effectively, but we can seldom do that where wit-
ness is needed. I have learned that some refugees
are glad to share the burden of testimony, and
daily risk exposure that could bring prosecution
(or is persecution the better word?). For them,
it is fine that “sanctuary” will help them in every
way possible, including what material and legal
support can be found.

However, I am quite certain that the average
refugee seeks freedom from danger together with
the chance to earn a living (either indefinitely or
just until he can return “home”). I have been ex-
posed to the statement that the U.S.A. is the only
country that will not permit that. Even if that
extreme statement is untrue, even if there are
other countries of refuge that refuse admission to
genuine refugees, I do know that Canada will enter-
tain an application for temporary or permanent
residence at its consulates in Mexico and that its
action will not be the automatic “no” the U.S.
normally utters. In fact, Canada has been known
to admit refugees who arrive at its port(s) of entry,
subject to a hearing, though under its procedures
this is not the preferred way.

It seems to me that North American and Mexican
Friends should inform themselves and provide infor-
mation to refugees, while they are still en route in
Mexico, so that they can choose among real options.*
If they are willing, when necessary, to play “cat
and mouse” in the U.S.A. , “sanctuary” as we know
it will help them. If they prefer to apply to a fairer
administration, that is also their right and we should
aid them before they cross another border. I hope
we would have at least minimum resources to
give life to this position. Nothing I say should be
understood to mean that resources in Mexico
exist, except for temporary sojourn. They do not.

Abram B. Goldstein

Eugene Meeting (OR)

*[Casa de Los Amigos, Friends Meeting in Mexico
City, is endeavoring to aid Central American refugees
and is greatly in need of financial contributions to
continue their work. Thus far, 722 refugees have
been helped. Send checks to Casa de los Amigos,
Igancio Mariscal 132, 06030 Mexico, D.F., Mexico.

If you wish a tax deduction in the U.S.A., make
your check payable to Orange Grove Meeting,
earmarked Central American Refugee Program,

Casa de los Amigos and mail to them at 526 E.
Orange Grove Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91104.]

Santa Fe Meeting Resident Sought

A mature, hospitable Friend is sought for a
one to two year term as Resident for the Santa Fe
Friends Meeting, beginning in the summer or early
fall of 1985. For an information packet, please
send a letter of interest to the Search Committee,

630 Canyon Rd., Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 .

The Time is Short! Entertainers, Where
Are You?

PYM Community Nighters please send informa-
tion regarding intent to appear and proposed talent
contribution as soon as possible to Walter Klein,
4509 Pavlov Avenue, San Diego, CA 92122. We

want to encourage and give preference to those
who have never before participated. Also we want
to provide entertainment/amusement during food
lines and eating periods. Friends with such talents—
musical, mime, clowns, etc.— contact Walter at
619-457-4489.

(Editorial: Cont. from page 154)

world, demanded that one be not merely
a listener, or a good friend, but yes, be in
trouble. . . we must each of us explore and
prod the world, and enter into some kind
of jeopardy.

Shirley Ruth

FRIENDS BULLETIN

JULY, 1985 — PAGE 167

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE PACIFIC YEARLY MEETING
1985 Sessions: July 29 - August 3 — La Verne University, CA

SUNDAY: JULY 28 MONDAY: JULY 29

TUESDAY: JULY 30

COMMITTEE MEETINGS
AS ARRANGED BY
CLERKS
10:00 AM

BREAKFAST 7AM-8AM

BREAKFAST 7AM-8AM

REPRESENTATIVE
COMMITTEE 8:30-10:30 AM

WF GRPS A MTG FOR
WORSHIP 8:15-9:30 AM

ORIENTATION A INTROS
FOR EVERYONE HAM-NOON

STUDY GRPS ON NEW
FAITH A PRACTICE
9:45-11:45 AM

LUNCH 12:15 PM

LUNCH 11:45AM - 1:15PM

PARENT ORIENT. 1:15PM

PLENARY 1 ROLL CALL 2PM
REFRESHMENTS 3PM

PLENARY 3 1:30-3:30PM

INTEREST GRPS 3:45-5PM

WORSHIP 4-5 PM

DINNER 5-6:30 PM

DINNER 5-6:30 PM

REPRESENTATIVE COMM. SINGING 6:15-6:45 PM
MTG 7 - 9 PM PLENARY 2 7 - 9 PM

MAO A DISCIPLINE COMMS. :
NEW FAITH A PRACTICE

COMMUNITY NIGHT 1
6:15 - 7:30 PM
PLENARY 4 7:45 PM

STEWARDSHIP OF THE EARTH
MARSHALL MASSEY

SHARING GRPS 9:15 PM

WEDNESDAY: JULY 31 THURSDAY: AUGUST 1 FRIDAY: AUGUST 2 SATURDAY: AUGUST 3

BREAKFAST 7AM-8AM

BREAKFAST 7AM-8AM

BREAKFAST 7AM-8AM

BREAKFAST 7AM-8AM

WF GRPS A MTG FOR
WORSHIP 8:15-9:30 AM

WF GRPS A MTG FOR
WORSHIP 8:15-9:30 AM

WF GRPS A MTG FOR
WORSHIP 8:15-9:30 AM

WF GRPS 8:15-9:30 AM

PLENARY 5
9:45-11:45 AM

WORKING GRPS
SESSION 2
9:45-11:45 AM

PLENARY 9
9:45-11:45 AM
MINISTRY A OVRSGT

PLENARY 11
9:15-10:30 AM
EPISTLES
PLENARY 12
WORSHIP 11AM

LUNCH 11:45AM - 1:15PM

qUIET PICNIC OFF
CAMPUS 12 NOON

LUNCH 11:45AM - 1:15PM

LUNCH 12 NOON-1 : 30PM

WORKING GRPS SESSION 1
1:30-3:30 PM

WORSHIP 4-5 PM

PLENARY 7 3:30-5 PM

WORSHIP MEMORIALS

PLENARY 10 1:30-3:30 PM

YOUNG FRIENDS
4-5 PM
WORSHIP

EVALUATION
2 - 3:30 PM
PYM OFFICERS A CLERKS
OF STANDING COMMITTEES
OTHERS WELCOME

DINNER 5-6:30 PM

DINNER 5-6:30 PM

DINNER 5-6:30 PM

SINGING 6:15 PM

PLENARY 6 6:45-8:45 PM

DANCING 9 PM

SINGING 6:15 PM

PLENARY 8 6:45-8:45 PM

MTG OF COMMITTEES 9PM

COMMUNITY NIGHT 2
6:45 - 8:45 PM

PAGE 168- JULY, 1985

FRIENDS BULLETIN

POSTMASTERS: SEND FORM 3579

Jalapa is Brown

by Miranda Collet, Witness for Peace

FRIENDS BULLETIN

722 Tenth Avenue, San Francisco, CA 941 18

Second-Class Postage Paid at San Francisco, CA

Jalapa is tender dust brown, grey brown, dark
brown;

yellowy brown dogs, buckskin horses, burnt sienna
cattle, fawn-colored pigs, brown hens.

Once I saw a very bright pure yellow flower
in a brown wall, and photographed it.

Where did the masses of flowers in church come from?
There were always clear reds and pinks at the burials.
We saw them on the olive green flatbed trucks
which took the boys to their graves in the brown
earth

outside of Jalapa Heroica.

The crosses they stuck in the cement over the young
bodies

were dull pink,

while the red of flowers left behind
wilted and shriveled to brown.

The setting sun made every brown hue
richer, richer, richer,
until it went out.

Then the browns turned grey
and quickly slipped into the watchful blackness
in the vigilant Jalapa night of snappy stars and
tense silence.

i

-q

>

03

Q

Jalapan Graves